NARAYAN NAGUESH POROB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed be a de facto complainant against the Order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in Criminal Case No. 2/s/1993 dated 31-10-1994 whereby the prosecution against the respondents Nos. 2 to 20 was allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE accusation against the respondents Nos. 2 to 20 was that they, with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the Temple of Devi Kelbar, abused with filthy words and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. They were charge-sheeted by Bicholim Police under sections 143,147,148, 332, 323, 427, 504 and 506 r/w section 149 I. P. C. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 9-3-1992 in the premises of the aforesaid Temple. While so, the Under Secretary (Home) Government of Goa, Home Department (General) Panjim vide his letter No. 2/14/93-HD (a) dated 9-3-1994 informed the Director of Prosecution that the Government has decided to withdraw from prosecution the above referred case pending before the Judicial Magistrate , First Class, Bicholim, against Satyawan Gawas and others, namely, respondents Nos. 2 to 20. It is also in pursuance of this letter that the Director of Prosecution seems to have written a letter dated 31-3-1994 to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Civil and Criminal Courts, Bicholim, requesting to move an application to the Court immediately for withdrawal of the case and intimate the order in the Court to be informed to the Home Department. It appears that on the basis of this correspondence, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Bicholim has made an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim in C. C. No. 3/s/93 on 8-4-1994 saying that the Government has decided to withdraw the above case from prosecution. While the said petition was pending, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application on 26-8-1994 amending the aforesaid application for withdrawing the prosecution giving certain grounds for withdrawal of the prosecution. In that application the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has enumerated the grounds for the withdrawal as follows:-

(3.) MR. Lotlikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, impugned the order on several grounds. He submits that the application does not disclose any satisfaction entered into by the Public Prosecutor based on which alone an application for sanction of withdrawing the prosecution could be ordered. He argues that the grounds for withdrawal of prosecution were given by the Government and not by the Public Prosecutor and this fact is clear from the correspondence that has ensued between the Under Secretary (Home) and the Director of Prosecution.